On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:49:38AM -0500, Camm Maguire wrote:
> Greetings, and thank you so much for your reply on this issue!
>
> Please let me preface the below with the statement that these are, of
> course, my opinions only, and that there may well be issues of which
> I'm unaware which may co
Greetings, and thank you so much for your reply on this issue!
Please let me preface the below with the statement that these are, of
course, my opinions only, and that there may well be issues of which
I'm unaware which may contraindicate my conclusions.
Briefly, I think this is a bug in libc6 be
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:04:47PM -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> reaassign 217484 libc6
> severity 217484 important
> merge 217484 204789
> thanks
>
> Greetings! This is due to the way libc6 on ia64 Debian linux (only)
> recalculates function descriptors at runtime depending on the exact
> version
reaassign 217484 libc6
severity 217484 important
merge 217484 204789
thanks
Greetings! This is due to the way libc6 on ia64 Debian linux (only)
recalculates function descriptors at runtime depending on the exact
version of the shared libs present, ostensible soname compatibility
notwithstanding.
On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 02:04:47PM -0400, Camm Maguire wrote:
> reaassign 217484 libc6
> severity 217484 important
> merge 217484 204789
> thanks
>
> Greetings! This is due to the way libc6 on ia64 Debian linux (only)
> recalculates function descriptors at runtime depending on the exact
> version
reaassign 217484 libc6
severity 217484 important
merge 217484 204789
thanks
Greetings! This is due to the way libc6 on ia64 Debian linux (only)
recalculates function descriptors at runtime depending on the exact
version of the shared libs present, ostensible soname compatibility
notwithstanding.
6 matches
Mail list logo
